If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Sources: Yanks to get Vernon Wells

Originally Posted by False1

Not sure how you can be a fan a this point. Unless he has a hidden two-year stash of Ortiz' Magic Milkshake Mix.

Really, they should just tell him to cannonball a bunch of those milkshakes and ride it until he gets caught, however long that might be. Even 5 games of juiced-up Vernon Wells will probably be better than what we get over 150+ games of his current self.

Re: Sources: Yanks to get Vernon Wells

Everyone seems down on this move, yet I see it as an indication that Cashman is, in fact, looking to improve the team - even if only for the short run.

From the reports that I have heard (and, yes, nothing is official until announced), the Yankees would give up a low-level prospect and the Angels would pick up the overwhelming majority of this contract.

Wells has not had a bad spring (albeit not great either), hitting .361/.390/.722 with four homers and 11 RBI in 41 plate appearances. Giving us another RH bat with CF experience and the ability to play the corner position is not a bad idea.

What would be most interesting is if the deal could be structured such that the Yankees pay whatever they agree to take on this year, only paying the ML minimum next season - that would make it even better.

Re: Sources: Yanks to get Vernon Wells

Interesting that Cashman is willing to pay Wells $5-6 million a year, but wouldn't even make an offer to Russell Martin.

I have seen/heard absolutely nothing that suggests that Cashman is considering taking on this much of his contract.

Plus, the whole Martin issue is so passe, why even bring it up? Cashman stated his priorities in the off-season and followed those priorities. Martin chose deliberately not to wait - his right and privilege.

But to constantly complain that Cashman "wouldn't even make an offer to Russell Martin" when Martin was not at the top of his priority is getting a little old, at least to this poster.

Re: Sources: Yanks to get Vernon Wells

Originally Posted by longtimeyankeefan

I have seen/heard absolutely nothing that suggests that Cashman is considering taking on this much of his contract.

Plus, the whole Martin issue is so passe, why even bring it up? Cashman stated his priorities in the off-season and followed those priorities. Martin chose deliberately not to wait - his right and privilege.

But to constantly complain that Cashman "wouldn't even make an offer to Russell Martin" when Martin was not at the top of his priority is getting a little old, at least to this poster.

I'm not sure why it's passe to wonder why the yankees would spend $13mm on Vernon Wells but not on Russell Martin during the offseason.

Re: Sources: Yanks to get Vernon Wells

Originally Posted by longtimeyankeefan

I have seen/heard absolutely nothing that suggests that Cashman is considering taking on this much of his contract.

Plus, the whole Martin issue is so passe, why even bring it up? Cashman stated his priorities in the off-season and followed those priorities. Martin chose deliberately not to wait - his right and privilege.

But to constantly complain that Cashman "wouldn't even make an offer to Russell Martin" when Martin was not at the top of his priority is getting a little old, at least to this poster.

Bringing up Martin is a valid question: Given a choice between Martin or Wells at $6.5 million a year should be a no-brainer. Martin will arguably give you better offensive production while playing a premium position.

Passe? It happened this offseason...

If we cannot discuss these things, then what's the point of these forums? May as well shut them down and provide static replies to every question..

Run the video - this reporter states that "it is expected that will be a minimal amount" that the Yankees will pick up.

Originally Posted by Zimmers' Helmet

Bringing up Martin is a valid question: Given a choice between Martin or Wells at $6.5 million a year should be a no-brainer. Martin will arguably give you better offensive production while playing a premium position.

Originally Posted by YankeeFan1421

I'm not sure why it's passe to wonder why the yankees would spend $13mm on Vernon Wells but not on Russell Martin during the offseason.

The fact that Cashman didn't make Martin a priority is the point.

The issue is passe because there is nothing that can be done at this point regarding this issue.

Trying to argue that a decision being made in spring training after half the team has gone down with injuries affected a decision made in the beginning of the off-season are two totally separate, unrelated arguments.

Besides, salary paid to the player and the salary counting towards the luxury tax are two different things entirely. Since the luxury tax number is based on a player's AAV, Martin would have counted as $8.5M no matter what.

Check out this argument. I am not saying that this approach is correct, but could it be the reason why the Yankees would be willing to pay $13M (if that number is correct)?

Re: Sources: Yanks to get Vernon Wells

Well, it's warranted when people make zero effort to inform themselves, then use it as an excuse to shoot down others who have....

Totally untrue - I don't bother following the Twitter universe. I find it to be a ridiculous endeavor.

I asked for an link and I appreciate the individual providing it, even if it is entirely (IMO) unreliable.

As for your link, I let it run. The LA Times article reports no number. The NY Daily News article states:

The Angels are expected to pick up a substantial portion of the $42 million Wells is owed over the next two seasons, while the Yankees are expected to send a low-level prospect or two back to Los Angeles.

Re: Sources: Yanks to get Vernon Wells

Is it an awful decision if they get Wells for a low level prospect and essentially no luxury tax impact?

Still hypothetical of course, but if that's true then the only criticism of the deal would be opportunity cost.

It's a bit disingenuous to make an opportunity cost argument with hindsight (e.g., with that money they could have had Russell Martin or Nick Swisher), particular since most if not all of those hindsight options would have had an impact on the 2014 luxury tax issue. But there is still a potential opportunity cost with respect to who else they could potentially add to the 2013 roster, either now or later in the year. Given the quality of the players they are expecting (hoping) to get back from the DL, the greatest need is now, not later. So on the whole, I can see the reasoning behind this deal even though I'm not sure it really makes the team that much better.